About your Search

20130318
20130326
STATION
CNNW 9
MSNBCW 6
KQEH (PBS) 2
KNTV (NBC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 23
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)
.s. supreme court. it will hear arguments for the defense of marriage act known as doma. we discuss the issues before the u.s. supreme court. it's the final stop on a long and winding legal road. let's begin with a look at how it all started. the week of valentine's day, 2004, newly elected san francisco mayor gavin newsom, boldly, some said recklessly orders to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. >> we reignited a fundamental debate. >> scott: outside city hall, gays and lesbians lines up around the block. about 4,000 couples tied the knot. it was not to last. at the urging of then governor schwarzenegger, the supreme court stopped the marriages. over the years, it snaked its way through the judicial system. in 2008, ruling banning gay unions violated the state constitution. it cannot be denied based on it. >> so goes the rest of the nation. it's inevitable. this door's wide open now. it's going to happen. whether you like it or not. >> scott: the ruling triggered a wave of joyful weddings this time across the state. including the celebrated union of two long time lesbian activists t
known as doma, first passed by congress and signed by president clinton in 1996 is being challenged at the supreme court. >> it's being asked to decide there whether or not congress can pass a law that treats same-sex couples who are already married under the laws of their state different from opposite section sex couples. >> reporter: defenders of the law say congress has as much right as the states to make its own definition of marriage. >> doma is important because congress said it was important. i mean we sent our elected representatives to washington, d.c. and they chose to say that marriage is one man and one woman for purposes of federal law. >> reporter: conservatives say the founding fathers never contemplated gay marriage. >> because it's clearly not what anyone understood as marriage at the time of the framing of the constitution. >> reporter: still, same-sex families pay taxes and don't get the same benefits and the issue with doma really gets complicated if they have children who are also excluded from benefits. >> when we have kids i would like them to be born in a pos
's proposition eight. let's start with doma. it's the federal law that defines marriage as a union between and a man and a woman. it keeps gays from get iting th same rights. president clinton signed doma into law in 1996. he now says it should be struck down. avery freedman from cleveland, good to e see you. >> hi, fredricka. >> and richard herman, good to see you as well. avery, you first on this. two cases before the supreme court. let's begin with doma. how much is at stake here? >> i think this is one of the great cases that the the supreme court will hear this term. that and prop eight. but doma which was compromised legislation and signed by bill clinton back in 1996 has always been questionable in terms of constitutionality. and two federal appeals courts have held that that law that restricts personnel rights that is by the federal government violates the constitution. it violates the equal protection law. in terms of the significance of it, it's really march madness. this is so important and so exciting because you have the solicitor general arguing against the constitutionality
at that point because they're hearing arguments on the defense of marriage act. doma denies federal benefits to same-sex couples legally married in their own state. and then friday, all right, car enthusiasts get to new york. the new york auto show kicks off. the nine-day event features about 1,000 vehicles and will, of course, show off hot new cars and trucks from around the world and all the technology that goes in them. >>> we told you about the defensive marriage act up for debate on wednesday. thousands of couples across the country affected by the supreme court decision and cnn joe johns spoke to one of those couples. joe? >> christi, the defensive marriage act has been the law of the land since 1996. though its title may sound harmless enough, gay and lesbian americans all over the country claim the law has caused enormous damage, claiming that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. jamel thomas and corinne williams were together four years before they got married last october. don't let the wedding dresses fool you. their lives are not all saturn and pearls. >> i am a
as the states to make its own definition of marriage. >> doma is important because congress said it was important. i mean we send our elected representatives to washington, d.c. an they chose to say that marriage is one man and one woman for purposes of federal law. >> reporter: and conservatives say the founding fathers never contemplated gay marriage. >> because it is clearly not what anyone understood as marriage at the time of the framing of the constitution. >> reporter: still, same-sex families pay taxes and don't get the same benefits and the issue with doma really gets complicated if they have children who are also excluded from benefits. >> when we have kids i would like them to be born in a post-doma united states. >> reporter: still, california as one of only a handful of states that gives most of the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples and domestic partnerships. one question is whether any ruling by the court on california could affect all of those other states in the same way. pred? >> thanks so much, joe. >>> so is there a feeling that the landscape on gay marr
and hundreds of years. doma is complicated because it does provide protection for the states from the federal government part of it federalizes the issue. there is a chance the court could strike down the federalization part of it. if they do i think the way to fix it is maybe to try to make all of the laws more neutral towards the issue. i don't want the government promoting something i don't believe in you but i don't mind if the government tries to be neutral on the issue. i'm for a flat income tax and we wouldn't have marriage as part of the tax code. health insurance there is a way to write it where it would be neutral and you wouldn't bring marriage into the idea of health insurance chris i want to -- >> chris: i want to go back to the filibuster. after you filibustered for 13 hours you got this letter from the attorney general in which he wrote does the president have the authorization to kill an american with a drone to kill an american not engaged in combat on american soil just is answer to that is no. it seems to me what attorney general holder is saying by implication is that the
's proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage. the second case involves the defense of marriage act known as doma. that law defines marriage as between a man and a woman. right now people are lining up outside of the supreme court trying to get front-row seats to history. will the supreme court say i do to same-sex marriage or decide to punt? key players made their arguments today on cnn's "state of the union." >> we immediate to keep the debate live. americans on both sides of the issue are deeply invested on this debate of marriage and don't need a 50-state solution presented by the supreme court when our democratic institutions are perfectly capable of handling the issue. that's what the court will december glide the united states supreme court since the 1880s has 14 times described marriage as a fundmental right. when we are talking about this issue going before the court, we are talking about fundamental notions of people, justice, and liberty. >> >> supreme court's ruling may not come until june but the justices question during argument this week may reveal how they are leaning. bring in no
a challenge to the defense of marriage act, or doma. that federal law defines marriage as being one man and one woman. edith windsor of new york is a plaintiff in the doma case. she fought back when she received an inheritance tax bill for $363,000 when her partner of 42 years died in 2009. here's what she told you in an earlier interview. >> new york state accepted my marriage as a marriage. and i believe and the justice department and the president agreed with me that the law doma is unconstitutional. doma is cruel. it discriminates against us for absolutely no value to the country. and we'd like to see that defeated all together. >> joe johns is in washington with more on what's ahead this week. morning, joe. >> morning. these are two of the most important cases of the year for the supreme court. the case involving edith windsor is actually the second case scheduled to be heard this week on wednesday. that challenge to the federal defense of marriage act. this is the law passed by congress and signed by the pld in 1996 that takes away benefits of marriage of same-sex couples on the f
clinton, who signed that into law say that d.o.m.a. should be overturned and senator rob portman is citing his familiarity with this issue, his son is gay. how do you think this is going to play out in the 2014 midterms and then subsequently 2016 general election? >> well, alex, we've seen a clear shift in public opinion on this issue over the last ten years. it's been quite dramatic. all sorts of polls now, including the reuter's poll last week shows that the public supports gay marriage even civil unions. even in the south, the majority supports gay marriage or civil unions together. democrats are united on this issue. they say it's a big winner, especially among younger voters, and there's a real sort of active debate within the republican party about how to play this. there's a lot of people saying we've got to stop emphasizing these social issues because they are not working in our favor. however, if you're going to have a divisive 2016 primary, rick santorum is going to want to talk about that and that could really hurt them. >> do you think that will be the case in 2016? if you look
environment -- i would be hard to imagine if in june they come back with the ruling on the doma case and prop 8 case and they maintain doma and maintain -- it's just hard to imagine in this environment. there would be such a backlash. the public is so ahead of where these laws were in 2004 and 2008. >> bill: absolutely. 866-55-press if you want to weigh in on this very very significant movement in the direction in support of marriage equality. you mentioned and you referred to the -- we love the phrase autopsy. in that this is what the republicans are calling it the point we have made here several times. it's an unusual choice of a phrase -- if you want -- that you do not perform autopsy on bodies you expect to come back to life. >> they are dead. >> bill: exactly they are cold. but that's what they are calling it. at any rate, one of the things is outreach. we're going to spend $10 million reaching out to women and to blacks and to latinos and they are already violating it you report on think progress. >> they violated moments after -- you have this big endorse
act or doma on wednesday. one of the top attorneys arguing against prop 8 which bans sa same-sex marriage in the state predicted a win while speaking on "meet the press." >> every time the supreme court makes a decision, it's making a decision that certain fundamental rights are too important to be left to the ballot box. we've done it with race, with women, with every discriminating class and, remember, when the united states supreme court outlawed the bans on interracial marriage in 1967, 64% of the american people opposed interracial marriage and yet when that decision came down, there wasn't a ripple. >> today more than 160 rallies are planned across the country in support of what advocates call marriage equality. a recent abc news/"washington post" poll shows most americans think same-sex marriage should be legal. a major shift from nine years ago when more people were against gay marriage than were for it. but the poll also shows a significant age divide. 70% of people under the age of 40 support same-sex marriage while more over the age of 6 abelieve it should be illeg
of marriage act, doma. and there are reports of people already lining up outside the court to hear these arguments. and joining me now is the executive director for the foundation for equal rights. thank you for joining me. i want to get a preview of the case that you're going to present to the supreme court next week. >> sure. on tuesday, ted and david are going to go in that courtroom and they're going to make the case that one, 14 times the supreme court has said there's a fundamental right to marry for all americans. two, that denying gay and lesbian couples that right all rights them and hurs their families. and three, allowing gay and lesbian couples access to this right to make that pledge of public commitment through love and marriage hurts no one else. >> it must be buoyed by a group that agreed that children who are raised with gay parents that are married have a much more stable home life for them. but when it comes to whether or not this should be a state versus federal issue, we are seeing governors approach it quite differently. you have colorado's governor hickenloop
support for gay marriage. come out for d.o.m.a., which he passed. they have sort of come to the light, if you will. republicans i think need to also have a, they need to go to authenticity school or wherever it is that you learn how to do this sort of stuff if they're going to move the party forward on this. >> the fact that they've called this the growth and opportunity project, i think says it all this is about, i know that this is is a strategy document for trying to win more votes. but why not call it something like, what we can do for middle class america. i mean, why not make this about the policies of the republican party that are going to help people, rather than how we can get more votes. i mean that for me said it all. and at the same time that this comes out, you have the republican congressman from tennessee suggesting we should have random drug testing of welfare recipients. there you have the exact opposite message coming out from a republican again, about how they view basically poor people. >> and unfortunately, we didn't have time to discuss this, this piece of strate
will do. >> i think the case against doma is extraordinary. i cannot imagine the court not declaring it unconstitutional. in fact, i am so hopeful i think we might even get a 6-3 vote out of this. >> bill: wow. >> because in one since you could make the conservative case that the federal court was messing in state's business. from a conservativeview point, you could possibly vote against it. i think the prop 8 case is very much up in the air. it's interesting to me that the court took it on because it could have just let the lower court decision stand which would have declared it unconstitutional for california. why did they check it out? i don't think it's to overturn the lower court's decision and i don't think that we will see them proclaiming marriage equality nationwide. >> yeah. >> what i do think is is that they will overturn -- excuse me. they will affirm prop 8s unconstitutionality for california but they will be doing it as a way of signalling to the country that marriage equality for all is on its way. >> right. >> that will be a great statem
party coming up with a video changing the clinton view on doma and in the republican party, we're hearing from all across the spectrum that regardless of what the supreme court does the party needs to have a more libertarian view on this. republicans are telling us it would be a huge help with fund-raising especially in the big states of new york, california, and florida. if the republican party were to be more open on this. and people are telling us that investors don't want to invest what they think losing national elections which could continue to be the case if republicans stay very narrow on this issue. republicans i talked to even extremely conservative ones, very christian conservative republicans are telling me the polls they have seen in the last couple of weeks have been eye-opening, showing not only that young people very heavily in favor of gay marriage, but if you extrapolate that a little bit in just 10, 20 years, this is going to be 70/30 issue that republicans are going to be quickly going to be on the wrong side of. >> to your point, mike, looking at a graphic.
alimit of all the different parties on that. >> if the high court decides on doma, what does that mean for opponents for same-sex marriage? is that a settled issue, but is it like obama care and we'll still be talking about it years from now? >> we'll still be talking about it. let's let the states decide one at a time and that's probably the best way. public opinion is definitely shifting. maybe ten years from now, they all will be there. >> if the states decide, then we have patch work of laws where you have folks who can get married in california, but if they move to nebraska, are they recognized there? whatever your politics, there needs to be a settled universal law. >> for a while, gay rights advocates have argued that this shouldn't be settled in the courts, because he wanted a victory of public opinion. he wanted states one by one to have their people come over to the right side of the issue in their view. but i think that even andrew sullivan have come to the point where they say the majority of americans support same-sex marriage and those who oppose it are becoming less and
, republicans came in though defend doma. the case comes in a different political climate than four years ago when prop 8 became law. an example, yesterday republican adviser karl rove said in the next election he could see pub one of the republican candidates favoring same-sex marriage. >> we will be covering a lot next week. thank you very much. >>> an apology from the irs over a training video that parodied star trek and paid for by taxpayer money. kelly o'donnell is in washington with more on that story. good morning to you. >> reporter: good morning. well, anytime your tax money is wasted, it's frustrating but especially so when it is the irs that's accused of poor judgment. a congressional committee found this star trek spoof didn't have any training value in it at all. to boldly go hollywood. ♪ the irs spent $60,000. >> captain log. >> reporter: making two videos including this elaborate "star trek" parody. >> sorry about the uniforms, the dry cleaner gave us the wrong order. >> how fast can you get out of here. >> reporter: and of course mr. spock. but they aren't actors. no they ar
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)